WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
Offline
SuzukiSavage.com Rocks!
Posts: 12854
Gender:
|
By definition,.. religion requires faith, without evidence...
Climate change is supported by a wide body of collected evidence that has been accepted by 98% of scientists in the field... hardly faith based...
On the other hand,... some people choose to believe the 2%... of which, half believe climate change is happening, but we didn't cause it... and the other half deny it is happening at all... Conflicting theories,... but both theories are accepted with enthusiasm by deniers... Deniers don't care which is true.... because either supports their agenda, and neither is supported by evidence... Belief,.. without, or in conflict, with evidence, is a religion... Now,... who's an angry little zealot?....
By definition, the vast majority of what you just said is not true.
First off; I’m not disputing the avg temp of the planet has increased over a given period of time. Where I sit right now was under ice a few thousand years ago so it’s a given the temp has risen.
I’m not disputing human activity has added gases to the atmosphere that have been shown to potential trap heat. I am disputing that it’s significant, can’t be lowered without major lifestyle/economic changes and that it hasn’t turned into a cult like religion.
Climate change is supported by a wide body of collected evidence that has been accepted by 98% of scientists in the field... hardly faith based...
The only surprising fact about that is that it’s not 100% of ‘scientist in the field’… A paleontologist is unlikely to believe in creationism either….
On the other hand,... some people choose to believe the 2%... of which, half believe climate change is happening, but we didn't cause it... and the other half deny it is happening at all...
I think the people who signed the statement below represent a pretty important 2%,…
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
and before you start your predictable 'big oil' nonsense, remember global warming is big business nowdays. the extent to which the climategate email show some scientist will go thru to kill dissent was rather telling, don't you think?
bottom line is you don't know anything more about the science behind the climate that I do. The only difference is I read both sides of the debate, you read one side and discount the other.
|